Announcer 1: The views and opinions expressed in listening are those of the host of the program and its guests.

They do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of WGTE public media.

Keith: Politics in the United States Today is deeply and bitterly divided.

We know this.

Both sides in 2024 have said that democracy itself is in peril.

In the last days of the campaign, the word fascism has been used.

What is understood by this word?

And what do we mean by democracy?

This fall, I explored these questions with 30 students at Lourdes University and its Lifelong Learning program.

We focused on two contemporary political theorists, Hannah Arendt and Reinhold Niebuhr, and two books, The Children of Light and The Children of Darkness by Niebuhr and Crisis of the Republic by Arendt.

These writers both speak to our times, and particularly this moment in time.

This program is a kind of record of that exploration.

We're looking at democratic theory here.

We're looking at the state of democracy in the world, but specifically in our country.

when we talk about democracy, what do we mean exactly?

Democracy means everyone right?

Everyone gets to participate.

Everyone has a say.

What comes to your mind when you hear that word?

What's democracy mean to you?

Student 1: Majority rule.

Keith: Majority rule.

That's a classic thing we all learn in school.

Student 2: I think it's freedoms to freedoms that freedom Keith: like freedom of speech, freedom of the press Student 2: freedom to gather Keith: freedom of assembly See, I would submit to you that we really aren't clear about what we mean about democracy, because those are all kind of different things.

This has to do with constitutional liberty, as does this.

This is closer to what Hannah Arendt describes as the expansion of participation.

This is what you might call kind of minimalist democracy.

We certainly don't mean democracy like the ancient Greeks, do we.

We don't mean all people are equal.

All people have power.

Everyone's kind of a governor because we also have representative democracy.

This is the practical way we've dealt with.

There are a lot of us, and only a few people can make decisions.

We found we needed working definitions of the basic topics we were exploring, First, democracy.

I'll offer three.

Number one.

Maximum possible realistic participation for the greatest number.

Hence universal suffrage, which did not exist for women in the United States until 1920 and did not exist for blacks and Native Americans until 1965.

Number two is a qualitative definition of democracy.

It comes from John Dewey.

The maximum development of the individual person and the maximal development of society, and some sort of balance.

Number three is from Reinhold Niebuhr.

Democracy, he said, is finding proximate solutions to insoluble problems.

So how do we define anti-democratic feelings and forces?

I prefer this term to fascism.

Fascism has a particular historic meaning, and not everything that is bad for democracy.

For instance, dishonesty or demagoguery and politicians or failure of the press is fascism.

What is anti-democracy?

What are anti-democratic forces?

I will list five things.

First, what Niebuhr calls primitivism, a rebellion against complexity.

Second, desire for a strong man.

Forget Congress and checks and balances.

Give us a strong man who will get it done.

Third ideology a complete set of answers and solutions to the problems of politics, society, and life itself.

Fourth, extreme and exclusive nationalism and chauvinism.

Defining the ends and the outs.

Those who are out should not be here.

And fifth law becomes subjective, not objective.

Whoever has power or guns is the law.

We ask two small groups of three to step out of the class and speak for a moment about why a class like this is important, and what their concerns are for the country.

Margaret: sometimes trying to understand what's going on.

It seems like I'm just.

I'm getting nowhere.

So I think, class like this, perhaps gives you a new way to to think about things, take a different approach.

View things in a different way Sarah: I have an old friend who said, well, I just try to find a little light and walk, and that's kind of what I feel like this does.

You know, for me, it's just, you know, help and focus and see, maybe beyond the immediate awfulness that might happen or is happening, you know, see beyond it somehow.

Margaret: And it challenges You to look at yourself.

Yeah, yeah.

So how do I fit in?

Keith: Am I a child of light Magaret: right?

Yeah.

I am child of light, right?

Am I naive?

Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Am I even being stupid?

Not a word I like to use, but yeah, yeah, Sarah: Neibhur didn't.

He was free to use the word stupid Judith: And in a sense, it's like civics on steroids.

I wish that I wish that high school and college, students could get this type of of interesting thought and conversation because when it's just cut and dried and facts and dates, nobody cares.

They don't understand how it relates to them, but we're making it relate to ourselves, and that's good.

I think we are definitely in trouble.

And, we need to preserve our democracy.

Keith: What's your fear?

What's your major fear?

Mel: I think that, I fear, how the country will react if we don't accept, the will of the people.

It's just that that's our fundamental right foundation.

Jude: What's wrong with our country?

respect, we dont, respect the other side.

the concern I think we all have is leadership, and community is about finding common ground and listening first issue framing, then hearing both sides, and then find to what we can do to better the thing as opposed to winning entirely.

What we've found in practicing law, it's not the best argument.

It is finding the best resolution of what needs to be done.

I'm so concerned that the norms that underlie what we say, our country and we have been taught what our country is all about are being ignored, that we face the prospect of real confrontation, whatever the outcome of this election is, whoever wins, what are we going to do to find a resolution that we lead the country to bring them together?

There's no universal truth and there's no universal solution.

But let's find some solution that moves the ball forward.

Keith: Hannah Arendt began life as a pure philosopher in her native Germany.

She fled Nazism, was arrested twice by the Nazis, and after several years, wound up in the United States, where she became an American citizen and eventually a famous and distinguished academic.

But the world and history converted her into a political theorist.

She wanted to make sense of what was happening around her.

Crisis of the Republic is a series of essays on the American political system in crisis.

It focuses on lying and politics, truth and lack of truth in politics, civil disobedience and political violence.

It focuses on what pulls us away from democracy.

The Children of Light and The Children of Darkness was written by Niebuhr after World War Two, at a time when communism was on the march Neibhur knew that a triumph of democracy was not inevitable.

He wanted to offer a realistic justification of democracy, one that had not been offered.

He felt prior to that time a better justification for democracy than naive democracy, or bourgeois democracy or individualist democracy.

Let me tell you a little more about Niebuhr and and Hannah.

Both of them critique what we think of as our system.

Niebuhr the sort of, nutshell thing that Neibhur came up with was man's inclination toward justice makes democracy possible, but his inclination toward injustice makes it necessary.

So he thought, we have a very naive idea of what democracy is and how to hang on to it.

And one of the reasons were naive.

Niebuhr was a theologian.

I'll talk about that in a few minutes.

One of the reasons we're naive is because we don't understand man's selfishness and man's self-delusion in his terms.

As a Christian theologian, it would be man's inclination towards sin.

Hannah Arendt said, our our voting booth is too small.

Our sort of what you said earlier, our sense of what democracy is.

Every four years I vote, or every two years I vote.

And that's all I do.

That's too small an idea of citizenship.

enlightenment only comes from being schooled in the business of citizenship.

And if you have no sense of what it means to be a citizen, then you're never going to act in an enlightened way.

You're only going to pursue your own interests.

And both Niebuhr and Hannah Arendt are very dubious, dubious about this concept of contract.

When people come together, they make agreements.

That sounds reasonable.

That sounds rational.

And if we didn't have some sense of contract, well, how would we proceed with each other?

can every American have a stake in the society?

Can every American feel like he matters not just his vote, but his opinion, his participation?

So if something like that is our definition of democracy, then then we can refine our concern a little more and say, okay, how do we make that happen?

I thought we should seek some other voices and see how they related to our concerns and to our two texts.

we asked doctor Susan McCaffrey, who is a historian who taught for many years at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington.

about the strengths and the weaknesses of democracy and about the rise of historical fascism in the 20th century, as well as its relationship to populism.

So.

Sue, we talked a little, yesterday in preparation for this little chat.

About sort of the inherent fragility of democracy that, sort of from the get go, even in good times, it's it's hard to make it work and hard to hold it together.

And then you talked a little bit about, tell me if this is right.

Is this sort of the natural tendency of democracy to, to disintegrate somewhat to, to deteriorate, maybe deteriorates?

A better word is, is that a fair, reading of a historian's view?

Susan: Well, I don't know if it's a natural tendency for democracy to degenerate, but it's a possibility.

And we see a lot of them come under stresses and strains at different times in their history.

And just to say, generally, it's always fun to ask an American audience, you know, when, when would you say the United States became a democracy?

Because, of course, even in ou country, which was historically ahead of most other countries in terms of how many kinds of people we allowed to vote, how early, even we didn't have everybody voting at the beginning.

Right.

And it's been a gradual step by step thing.

And every time you add a new group of people to the electorate, it gets more complicated.

It doesn't get less complicated.

a lot to accommodate.

So it's a good open question if these democratic constitutions can handle all of this difference.

You know, Keith: so it takes time, maybe patience.

Maybe you use the word maturity.

Susan; Well, that's what, you know, I wish I had an easier answer about why.

What does it take to survive?

But I do think that, what we see is that when democracies survive through crises, through really difficult passages, those that do it, I think have, you know, we got a, got a word in some religious traditions, forbearance.

You know, when, when people kind of can put up with each other, that's what a lot of it entails, right?

These other people, I don't agree with them, but they have a right to say what they think.

Maybe we even have to do business with them.

We even have to compromise with them.

That's not for everybody.

Keith: I then spoke to Father Jim Bacik theologian and pastor.

about Reinhold Niebuhr, Christian Realism, and the relationship of Christian belief to democratic pluralism.

so I thought you could shed some light from the Catholic Christian point of view on this whole problem of of holding democracy together and and perhaps on your view of Niebuhr and his and his contribution to the debate.

Father Bacik: Yeah.

Well, we certainly got a problem, that's for sure.

So one thing most Americans agree on democracy is in crisis for different reasons.

But we got 80% of people think that right now for both the left and the right.

Niebuhr one said that the one empirically verifiable Christian doctrine is original sin.

So we all know we're flawed.

I'm not okay.

You're not okay.

But as some theologian said.

But that's okay.

We have to live with that.

So that dialectical approach is is really good.

You know, he sees two sides of things.

Keith: And for him, the doctrine of original sin, particularly pride and self-delusion.

That's a key insight into the flaws of democracy and how we deal with.

Father Bacik: Yeah, well, moral man, immoral society.

And then he tells us that it's harder for larger groups to be good and seek justice in smaller groups, more people you got The more likely it is that people are going the bad direction to get groupthink and so on.

So the group that is most likely to end up, not functioning correctly would be a nation and old people.

So countries, can become America, the United States, my country.

Right or wrong?

Right.

It becomes a prideful thing.

He was big on pride Keith: John Courtney Murray is a is a, Catholic theologian that, you know a great deal about.

What sort of dialog would he with neighbor about?

Father Bacik: They actually did have they appeared together a number of times.

They had an what I'd call an affable relationship.

So John Courtney Murray went to a couple things.

One is they both appeared on the cover of time magazine.

You know, years of a, you know, Niebuhr was about 12 years older than Murray in the Catholic serials.

Murray's famous for Vatican two and getting the whole Catholic Church to realize that religious freedom is a good thing and we should favor religious freedom.

And so they, they sparred on occasion.

They sort of got along.

I think Niebuhr became more open to Catholicism.

And as he got older and mellowed a little bit.

Do you think the churches can play a part in getting us sort of talking with each other again?

Father Bacik: They can, they can, they should.

Every congregation should do that.

Every congregation should promote.

You know, I see in the Catholic Church, we have the people who are very pro-life and we have people who are very much in favor of social justice.

So my theory is they should, go to mass together, once a quarter or so and then sit together at mass and then go out afterwards and have brunch and talk and model to different approaches to how we make the world a better place and get the groups together to start individuals, groups, and then the political parties.

So he would say, look, you got to compromise.

You can't get proximate justice.

You know, I mean, for him, clearly the, the perfect and the enemy of the good, right?

You can't have perfection.

I don't think you can.

I don't think he may be loving.

You know, we're not going to have the kingdom on earth.

The kingdom is going to be at the end time when God's will for goodness and justice and peace prevails.

Keith: Right So your read would be as more and more people come into the tent.

There are sort of challenge points.

Yeah.

And would you say that's what's going on now, or is there something else going on now, something to sort of a crisis to do with populism, for example?

were so frustrated by how we were all polarized is our word now, right?

And it's so many people bickering and arguing with each other.

How are we ever going to figure out what to do and get something done?

Inflation is sticky.

It's hard to end it.

And it hurts people where they live.

So that's the frustration.

We're seeing that all over the world today.

Probably mostly in reaction to the pandemic.

Hard to get it under control.

Now, today we really have, again, all over the globe, a migrant crisis.

People are fleeing, interestingly, in large numbers, fleeing from non-democratic countries and all trying to go toward more democratic countries.

Maybe we should take a lesson from that.

But many people, and not just in the United States, feel too much migration.

We can't handle this, you know.

What are we going to do about it?

So that's a, problem.

lot of anxiety about gender roles.

So there's a lot of anxiety and a lot of intractable problems and that word, Which word?

Keith: The the f word.

Susan: Oh facism.

Keith: So, would that be analogous to populism in America today?

Because we don't we think of populism as kind of a positive thing some of the most part dont we?

Susan: Yeah.

I think I mean, you make a good point there.

I mean, certainly an authoritarian or fascist type of leader, again, stressing that they arise out of a democratic, you know, round they want to get elected.

That's the original plan right now.

If you listen, between the lines, often, what you heard in some of these movements in the past was, well, when we're elected, we're not having elections anymore because that's what's wrong with democracy.

It's elections are inherently divisive.

So we're not having those anymore.

You know, we don't want to go through that.

So some people were surprised when they voted for a party that then got rid of the constitutional right to vote.

But I don't know that they should have been because it was part of the package, really.

And if you ask yourself, well, how are they going to do that?

That might have been a natural answer.

But yes, I think that people could sort of honestly think this is a bona fide, legitimate choice.

I can vote for it.

That's our Constitution works and it's something new.

You know, the all of this anxiety, political anxiety, economic anxiety, cultural anxiety, it is a breeding ground for somebody to come along and say, I'm something completely new and different.

Well, in many of our life experiences, trying something new is a good idea, Student 1: my favorite chapter in Hannah's book was lying and politics and the light went on after I read it, that her definition.

Well, how people lie and why they lie.

I don't like that inherently is doing it.

And I look at this and going all the way back to human existence to see why you formed in these groups.

To begin, Student 2: In today's world, we see that, if the people between the 40s or the 30 yard lines could get together and find a common purpose, we would at least make progress.

Keith: The children of light don't always realize what it takes.

Student 3: I mean, he uses that word stupid a lot for the children of light.

Children of light are stupid.

Whereas the children of evil can be who can be wise and malicious.

Maybe if you see that throughout, it's sort of, I mean, it's an interesting way of looking at it.

It's like you, you goodhearted people need to be smarter about what you're doing.

Keith: Exactly And Sue McCaffrey again now explaining the anti-democratic temptations.

So I think a promise to solve intractable intractable problems overnight, to say I know how to do it.

And I know that the details are boring.

So I'm not even going to bother you with them.

But just trust me.

Yeah.

Maybe not.

You know, maybe not.

Yeah.

And it takes, you know, I think another, maybe good rule of thumb is to be pretty wary of any implied, promise to do something extra legally.

You know, the rule of law really is the the referee.

It's all we got.

And the great one of the great strengths of democracy.

When we if you can keep it as they said, is that if the voters find that they've made a mistake, well, then there's another election coming pretty soon and you can reverse course.

And we've done that in our political history sometimes, but not if we get rid of the Constitution, not if we change the system and make it so that you can't do that anymore.

Keith: So what did we conclude at the end of our class?

Well, we concluded that we need a tie that binds something beyond the structures and the process.

We need to find ways to talk to each other across the divide.

We need tolerance and even more what Niebuhr calls humility.

Niebuhr says that humility is the touchpoint between democracy and Christianity.

In his book The Irony of American History, Niebuhr writes, nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime.

Therefore, we must be saved by hope.

Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history.

Therefore, we are saved by faith.

Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone.

Therefore, we are saved by love.

No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our standpoint.

Therefore, we must be saved by the final form of love, which is forgiveness.

Announcer 1: The views and opinions expressed in listening are those of the host of the program and its guests.

They do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of WGTE public media.